Jailers, not police, will do DNA collection

A criminalist examines for DNA evidence at a lab in the NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner, on June 4, 2010, in New York. New York state is allowed to collect a DNA sample from anyone convicted of a crime, including misdemeanors such as curfew violation, petty theft and vandalism. Wisconsin has recently changed its law to require samples from anyone arrested for violent felonies, but samples won’t be processed until a judge finds probable cause.(Photo: AP)

Story Highlights

Law requires DNA samples from anyone arrested for high-level felony and from everyone convicted of any crime.

Testing will be done mostly at jails, not by individual police officers making arrests

Don’t expect to see police officers collecting DNA samples from suspects under a new law that expands the collection of DNA samples from criminal offenders.

That likely won’t happen until you’re booked into jail.

That’s the way area counties are handling thestate law that anyone arrested for a violent felony must submit to a DNA test. The law went into effect this month.

The sampling involves an oral swab.

“Rather than have the officer on the street do it in an uncontrolled environment, we’ll just do it when they’re being booked in,” Brown County Sheriff John Gossage said.

The samples will be sent to the state Department of Justice, but won’t be processed until a judge finds probable cause that a crime was committed, at which time it will become a permanent part of a database.

For all other felonies and misdemeanors, DNA samples will be taken upon conviction, not upon arrest. That also will be handled by sheriff’s departments, either at the jail or by court security officers.

The Department of Justice, which has been collecting about 12,000 DNA samples annually from convicted felons under the old law, expects to handle 25,000 from felony arrests and 40,000 from convictions next year.

Kewaunee County Sheriff Matt Joski doesn’t expect a large increase in the workload in his county.

“Our numbers will be limited, but we see the same individuals over and over, so once we have them on file, we don’t have to continually take new samples,” he said.

Brown County, on the other hand, could collect hundreds of new samples annually because of the new requirement for misdemeanor convictions, Gossage said.

“There could be over 2,000 misdemeanor cases a year,” he said.

Many of those offenders aren’t sentenced to jail time, so DNA collection will be done on a walk-in basis when the court orders it after conviction.

“They could face a new crime for refusing to have it done,” Brown County District Attorney David Lasee said.

None of the area sheriff’s departments expect to need additional manpower. The state provides the test kits and $10 per kit per agency, to cover time, Gossage said.

From the investigation standpoint, though, it could be real benefit.

“We’re very excited about it,” Joski said. “The way we’re going to be able to bring this into the system, I compare it to fingerprints…You’re looking at solving cases you’ve never been able to solve before. Victims will be able to find closure and justice.”

Not everyone is pleased with the new law. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin opposed the measure, executive director Chris Ahmuty said.

The ACLU isn’t opposed to forensic use of DNA, he said, just taking it from people who, at the point of arrest, are still considered innocent.

“We’re not saying there aren’t any legitimate uses for DNA in law enforcement, but shouldn’t there be a warrant? And if there’s a conviction, I don’t think we’d say there needs to be a warrant, but why for all misdemeanors? Why for disorderly conduct ... should you be considered a suspect for every other crime out there?”

He also expressed doubts that the Department of Justice will completely expunge the DNA data of defendants who are found not guilty, as the law requires.

“Once something’s out there, you can’t get it back,” he said. “They say they will delete it, but there’s so many permutations, backups, and other states may have downloaded it already. You really can’t say it’s expunged.”

— psrubas@pressgazettemedia.com and follow him on Twitter@PGpaulsrubas.